SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF RESISTANCE TO PENETRATION IN SOIL UNDER SUGARCANE CROPS WITH DIFFERENT HARVEST METHODS

SOUZA, MAIRA DA CUNHA; OLIVEIRA, FLAVIO PEREIRA DE; SILVA, JOSÉVALDO RIBEIRO; MARTINS, ADRIANA FERREIRA; SILVA, PEDRO LUAN FERREIRA DA

doi:10.1590/1983-21252020v33n220rc

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Agricultural Engineering • Rev. Caatinga 33 (2) • Apr-Jun 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252020v33n220rc copy

SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF RESISTANCE TO PENETRATION IN SOIL UNDER SUGARCANE CROPS WITH DIFFERENT HARVEST METHODS

VARIABILIDADE ESPACIAL DA RESISTÊNCIA A PENETRAÇÃO EM SOLO SOB DIFERENTES CONDIÇÕES DE COLHEITA DE CANA-DE-AÇÚCAR

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The objective of this work was to evaluate the spatial variability of resistance to penetration in soil under sugarcane crops subjected to different harvest methods in the North Coast microregion of the state of Paraiba, Brazil. The study was conducted in a Typic Hapludult under sugarcane crops, at the farms Santa Emília-II and Maria da Luz-I of the company Miriri Food and Bioenergy S/A, in the municipalities of Rio Tinto and Capim, respectively, state of Paraíba, Brazil. Three sugarcane areas with different harvest methods (manual, mechanized, and manual/mechanized) were selected. The sampling was done in plots of 100 × 100 m, using a grid of 20 × 20 m, covering planting rows and interrows; each intersection point of the grid was georeferenced, and the soil mechanic resistance to penetration was evaluated with the aid of an impact penetrometer (IAA/Planalsucar-Stolf) up to the depth of 0-0.6 m. Soil disturbed and undisturbed samples from the 0.0-0.1 and 0.1-0.2 m layers were collected for analyses of soil moisture, texture, clay dispersed in water, flocculation degree. A pure nugget effect was found in the 0.0-0.1 and 0.4-0.5 m soil layers in the rows of the areas with manual/mechanized harvest. The spherical model was found for most conditions evaluated. The results for the areas were similar, with amplitude of 25-49 m, indicating that the harvest management had no effect on the soil resistance to penetration. No compacted areas were found, and the spatial dependency of the resistance to penetration was characterized as moderate to strong.

Keywords:
Soil compaction; Controlled traffic; Geostatistics

Soil layer (m)	Soil granulometry			CDW	Textural Class	Flocculation degree
Soil layer (m)	Sand	Silt	Clay	CDW	Textural Class	Flocculation degree
----------------------------g kg ^-1---------------------------						%
Manual harvest
Manual harvest
Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	884	55	61	0	Loamy Sand	100
0.1 - 0.2	878	51	71	0	Loamy Sand	100
Plantinginterrow
0.0 - 0.1	896	57	47	0	Sand	100
0.1 - 0.2	899	49	52	8	Sand	84.6
Mechanized harvest
Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	865	44	91	0	Loamy Sand	100
0.1 - 0.2	847	40	113	0	Loamy Sand	100
Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	864	59	77	0	Loamy Sand	100
0.1 - 0.2	864	43	93	5	Loamy Sand	94.6
Manual/mechanized harvest
Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	899	32	68	0	Sand	100
0.1 - 0.2	888	25	87	0	Loamy Sand	100
Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	901	32	67	0	Sand	100
0.1 - 0.2	903	32	65	0	Sand	100

Layer (m)	Minimum	Mean	Median	Maximum	SD	CV	CA	CC
Manual harvest
Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	0.26	1.43	1.13	5.09	1.19	82.77	1.63	5.08
0.1 - 0.2	1.07	3.17	2.45	9.48	2.38	75.04	1.28	3.57
0.2 - 0.3	1.22	3.76	3.00	8.83	2.01	53.41	0.91	2.91
0.3 - 0.4	1.83	4.06	3.19	9.26	1.92	47.16	1.07	3.32
0.4 - 0.5	1.65	3.95	3.66	7.29	1.63	41.38	0.51	2.09
0.5 - 0.6	1.65	3.85	3.77	7.29	1.52	39.39	0.34	2.27
Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	0.26	1.32	1.01	5.24	1.15	87.53	2.24	7.61
0.1 - 0.2	0.98	2.46	2.32	4.94	1.23	50.27	0.38	1.94
0.2 - 0.3	1.35	2.83	2.67	5.38	1.13	39.83	0.77	2.82
0.3 - 0.4	1.24	2.64	2.38	4.58	0.81	30.72	0.93	3.20
0.4 - 0.5	1.28	2.38	2.14	5.09	0.82	34.64	1.65	6.01
0.5 - 0.6	1.39	2.68	2.72	4.21	0.86	32.19	0.18	2.03
Mechanized harvest
Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	0.26	0.34	0.26	0.69	0.12	33.74	1.29	4.43
0.1 - 0.2	0.53	1.13	1.02	1.97	0.35	31.21	0.63	3.00
0.2 - 0.3	0.80	1.59	1.57	3.19	0.45	28.50	1.56	7.63
0.3 - 0.4	0.61	1.43	1.42	2.16	0.33	23.29	0.10	3.52
0.4 - 0.5	0.55	1.16	1.13	1.87	0.30	26.25	0.28	3.04
0.5 - 0.6	0.61	1.15	1.13	2.31	0..40	34.69	0.91	3.91
Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	0.52	1.01	1.13	1.57	0.24	24.12	0.02	2.82
0.1 - 0.2	1.34	2.16	2.14	2.63	0.31	14.50	-0.77	3.36
0.2 - 0.3	1.79	2.25	2.23	2.97	0.33	14.63	0.51	2.20
0.3 - 0.4	1.15	1.67	1.68	2.16	0.28	16.86	0.17	2.21
0.4 - 0.5	0.80	1.22	1.24	1.57	0.22	17.81	-0.26	2.01
0.5 - 0.6	0.69	1.17	1.18	1.72	0.27	23.17	0.25	2.27
Manual/mechanized harvest
Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	0.26	0.31	0.26	0.50	0.08	25.48	1.32	3.40
0.1 - 0.2	0.26	0.65	0.65	1.12	0.20	31.39	0.23	2.88
0.2 - 0.3	0.26	0.98	1.04	1.57	0.34	34.77	0.06	2.46
0.3 - 0.4	0.63	1.05	1.03	1.57	0.28	26.71	0.33	2.10
0.4 - 0.5	0.65	1.01	0.99	1.68	0.26	25.67	0.76	3.12
0.5 - 0.6	0.42	0.91	0.85	1.87	0.26	28.64	1.85	8.63
Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	0.26	0.62	0.59	1.28	0.23	36.57	1.32	4.99
0.1 - 0.2	0.82	1.35	1.39	2.09	0.32	23.68	0.21	2.68
0.2 - 0.3	1.21	1.74	1.76	2.45	0.28	16.37	0.13	3.02
0.3 - 0.4	1.06	1.69	1.72	2.60	0.31	18.50	0.63	4.50
0.4 - 0.5	0.83	1.37	1.40	1.72	0.21	15.47	-0.81	3.15
0.5 - 0.6	0.63	1.02	1.06	1.35	0.19	18.23	-0.41	2.37

Layer (m)	Planting row	Planting interrow
Layer (m)	Soil gravimetric moisture (kg kg^-1)
Manual harvest
0.0 - 0.1	0.02	0.02
0.1 - 0.2	0.02	0.02
0.2 - 0.3	0.02	0.03
0.3 - 0.4	0.03	0.04
0.4 - 0.5	0.04	0.04
0.5 - 0.6	0.04	0.04
Mechanized harvest
0.0 - 0.1	0.07	0.07
0.1 - 0.2	0.07	0.08
0.2 - 0.3	0.09	0.09
0.3 - 0.4	0.11	0.11
0.4 - 0.5	0.12	0.13
0.5 - 0.6	0.13	0.14
Manual/mechanized harvest
0.0 - 0.1	0.08	0.11
0.1 - 0.2	0.08	0.10
0.2 - 0.3	0.07	0.10
0.3 - 0.4	0.08	0.11
0.4 - 0.5	0.08	0.10
0.5 - 0.6	0.08	0.10

Layer (m)	C₀	C₀ + C₁	Range (m)	Model	SDI (%)
			Manual harvest
			Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	0.2	1.22	43	Spherical	84
0.1 - 0.2	0.5	5.00	41	Spherical	90
0.2 - 0.3	0.4	4.00	40	Spherical	90
0.3 - 0.4	0.5	3.60	41	Spherical	86
0.4 - 0.5	0.5	2.75	35	Spherical	82
0.5 - 0.6	0.5	3.21	40	Exponential	84
			Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	0.2	1.07	43	Spherical	81
0.1 - 0.2	0.2	1.53	35	Spherical	87
0.2 - 0.3	0.2	1.25	38	Spherical	84
0.3 - 0.4	0.1	0.60	45	Spherical	83
0.4 - 0.5	0.1	0.60	28	Spherical	83
0.5 - 0.6	0.04	0.74	31	Spherical	95
			Mechanized harvest
			Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	0.002	0.0155	29	Spherical	87
0.1 - 0.2	0.04	0.14	46	Spherical	71
0.2 - 0.3	0.05	0.243	25	Spherical	79
0.3 - 0.4	0.01	0.102	28	Spherical	90
0.4 - 0.5	0.012	0.109	30	Exponential	89
0.5 - 0.6	0.02	0.146	27	Spherical	86
			Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	0.0105	0.0704	27	Spherical	85
0.1 - 0.2	0.02	0.133	40	Spherical	85
0.2 - 0.3	0.0158	0.1188	29	Spherical	87
0.3 - 0.4	0.01	0.079	27	Spherical	87
0.4 - 0.5	0.005	0.047	27	Spherical	89
0.5 - 0.6	0.0113	0.0883	25	Spherical	87
			Manual/mechanized harvest
			Planting row
0.0 - 0.1	-	-	-	PNE	-
0.1 - 0.2	0.02	0.044	35	Exponential	55
0.2 - 0.3	0.003	0.114	39	Spherical	97
0.3 - 0.4	0.0056	0.0856	31	Spherical	93
0.4 - 0.5	-	-	-	PNE	-
0.5 - 0.6	0.01	0.065	32	Spherical	85
			Planting interrow
0.0 - 0.1	0.0045	0.0695	30	Exponential	94
0.1 - 0.2	0.01	0.115	49	Spherical	91
0.2 - 0.3	0.0033	0.0781	46	Spherical	96
0.3 - 0.4	0.02	0.095	45	Spherical	79
0.4 - 0.5	0.015	0.047	40	Spherical	68
0.5 - 0.6	0.005	0.0427	39	Spherical	88

Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido Avenida Francisco Mota, número 572, Bairro Presidente Costa e Silva, Cep: 5962-5900, Telefone: 55 (84) 3317-8297 - Mossoró - RN - Brazil
E-mail: caatinga@ufersa.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author